Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Twenty Years of Evidence on the Outcomes of Malpractice Claims

  • Symposium: Clinical Risk and Judicial Reasoning
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Abstract

Two decades of social science research on the outcomes of medical malpractice claims show malpractice outcomes bear a surprisingly good correlation with the quality of care provided to the patient as judged by other physicians. Physicians win 80% to 90% of the jury trials with weak evidence of medical negligence, approximately 70% of the borderline cases, and even 50% of the trials in cases with strong evidence of medical negligence. With only one exception, all of the studies of malpractice settlements also find a correlation between the odds of a settlement payment and the quality of care provided to the plaintiff. Between 80% and 90% of the claims rated as defensible are dropped or dismissed without payment. In addition, the amount paid in settlement drops as the strength of the patient’s evidence weakens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brennan TA, Sox CM, Burstin HR. Relation between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1963–1967.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheney FW, Posner K, Caplan RA, Ward RJ. Standard of care and anesthesia liability. JAMA. 1989;261:1599–1603.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Clermont KM, Eisenberg T. Do case outcomes really reveal anything about the legal system? Win rates and removal jurisdiction. Cornell Law Rev. 1998;83:581.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen TH. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Medical Malpractice Trials and Verdicts in Large Counties, 2001. 2004. Available at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mmtvlc01.pdf. Accessed August 17, 2008.

  5. Daniels S, Andrews L. The shadow of the law: jury decisions in obstetrics and gynecology cases. In: Rostow VP, Bulger RJ, eds. Medical Professional Liability and the Delivery of Obstetrical Care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Diamond SS. Order in the court: consistency in criminal-court decisions. In: Scheirer CJ, Hammonds BL, eds. The Master Lecture Series: Psychology and the Law. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Diamond SS, Zeisel H. Sentencing councils: a study of sentence disparity and its reduction. Univ Chic Law Rev. 1975;43:109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Farber HS, White MJ. Medical malpractice: an empirical examination of the litigation process. Rand J Econ. 1991;22:199–217.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Farber HS, White MJ. A comparison of formal and informal dispute resolution in medical malpractice. J Legal Stud. 1994;23:777–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hans VP, Lofquist WS. Jurors’ judgments of business liability in tort cases: implications for the litigation explosion debate. Law and Society Review. 1991;26:85–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Harris CT, Peeples R, Metzloff TB. Who are those guys? An empirical examination of medical malpractice plaintiffs’ attorneys. SMU Law Rev. 2005;58:225–250.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Liang BA. Assessing medical malpractice jury verdicts: a case study of an anesthesiology department. Cornell J Law Public Policy. 1997;7:121–164.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Localio AR, Weaver SL, Landis JR, Lawthers AG, Brenhan TA, Hebert L, Sharp TJ. Identifying adverse events caused by medical care: degree of physician agreement in a retrospective chart review. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:457–464.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Metzloff TB. Resolving malpractice disputes: imaging the jury’s shadow. Law Contemp Probl. 1991:43–129.

  15. Ogburn PL Jr, Julian TM, Brooker DC, Joseph MS, Butler JC, Williams PP, Anderson ML, Shepard AC, Ogburn SL, Preisler WC Jr, et al. Perinatal medical negligence closed claims from the St Paul Company, 1980–1982. J Reprod Med. 1988;33:608–611.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Peeples R, Harris CT, Metzloff T. The process of managing medical malpractice cases: the role of the standard of care. Wake Forest Law Rev. 2002;37:877.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Peters PG. What we know about malpractice settlements. Iowa Law Rev. 2007;92:1783–1833.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Peters PG. Doctors & juries. Mich Law Rev. 2007;105:1453–1495.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rosenblatt R, Hurst A. An analysis of closed obstetric malpractice claims. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:710–714.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sloan FA, Githens PB, Clayton EW, Hickson GB, Gentile DA, Partlett DF. Suing for Medical Malpractice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sloan FA, Hsieh CR. Variability in medical malpractice payments: is the compensation fair? Law and Society Review. 1990;24:1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Spurr SJ, Howze S. The effect of care quality on medical malpractice litigation. Q Rev Econ Finance. 2002;41:491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Yoon C, Puopolo AL, Brennan TA. Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2024–2033.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Taragin MI, Willett LR, Wilczek AP, Trout R, Carson JL. The influence of standard of care and severity of injury on the resolution of medical malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med. 1991;117:780–784.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vidmar N. Medical Malpractice and the American Jury: Confronting the Myths About Jury Incompetence, Deep Pockets, and Outrageous Damage Awards. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Weiler PC, Hiatt HH, Newhouse JP, Johnson WG, Brennan TA, Leape LL. A Measure of Malpractice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ruth L. Hulston Professor of Law, Hulston Hall, School of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Philip G. Peters Jr. JD

Authors
  1. Philip G. Peters Jr. JD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip G. Peters Jr. JD.

Additional information

The author certifies that he has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

About this article

Cite this article

Peters, P.G. Twenty Years of Evidence on the Outcomes of Malpractice Claims. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467, 352–357 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0631-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0631-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation